Sheehan v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheehan v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.

245 A.D. 737

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D. 737 (Sheehan v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sheehan v. New York Rapid Transit Corp., 245 A.D. 737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Alice Sheehan in the sum of $5,166.85, and in favor of her husband, Albert Sheehan, in the sum of $1,000, entered upon the verdict of a jury, after a trial to recover damages for personal injuries. Mrs. Sheehan fell on a stairway leading from a station of one of defendant’s elevated railroad lines. Our examination of the record leads us to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to justify the verdict. The verdict must have been based upon conjecture, since the plaintiff wife failed to prove a condition justifying a charge of negligence. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Scudder, Tompkins and Johnston, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Alice Sheehan in the sum of $5,166.85, and in favor of her husband, Albert Sheehan, in the sum of $1,000, entered upon the verdict of a jury, after a trial to recover damages for personal injuries. Mrs. Sheehan fell on a stairway leading from a station of one of defendant’s elevated railroad lines. Our examination of the record leads us to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to justify the verdict. The verdict must have been based upon conjecture, since the plaintiff wife failed to prove a condition justifying a charge of negligence. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Scudder, Tompkins and Johnston, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D. 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheehan-v-new-york-rapid-transit-corp-nyappdiv-1935.